Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Case:
The Issue:
Here, we find that the issue raised, i.e., whether petitioner had been a
resident of Uyugan, Batanes at least one (1) year before the elections held
on May 13, 2013 as he represented in his COC, pertains to his qualification
and eligibility to run for public office, therefore imbued with public
interest, which justified the COMELECs suspension of its own rules. We
adopt the COMELECs s ratiocination in accepting the petition, to wit:
This Commission recognizes the failure of petitioner to comply strictly with
the procedure for filing a petition to deny due course to or cancel certificate
of candidacy set forth in Section 4, Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, which requires
service of a copy of the petition to respondent prior to its filing. But then,
we should also consider the efforts exerted by petitioner in serving a copy
of his petition to respondent after being made aware that such service is
necessary. We should also take note of the impossibility for petitioner to
personally serve a copy of the petition to respondent since he was in
Canada at the time of its filing as shown in respondents travel records.
The very purpose of prior service of the petition to respondent is to afford
the latter an opportunity to answer the allegations contained in the petition
even prior to the service of summons by the Commission to him. In this
case, respondent was given a copy of the petition during the conference
held on 10 December 2012 and was ultimately accorded the occasion to
rebut all the allegations against him. He even filed a Memorandum
containing his defenses to petitioners allegations. For all intents and
purposes, therefore, respondent was never deprived of due process which
is the very essence of this Commissions Rules of Procedure.
Even the Supreme Court acknowledges the need for procedural rules to
bow to substantive considerations through a liberal construction aimed at
Petitioner next claims that he did not abandon his Philippine domicile. He
argues that he was born and baptized in Uyugan, Batanes; studied and had
worked therein for a couple of years, and had paid his community tax
certificate; and, that he was a registered voter and had exercised his right of
suffrage and even built his house therein. He also contends that he usually
comes back to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacations from work abroad,
thus, his domicile had not been lost. Petitioner avers that the requirement
of the law in fixing the residence qualification of a candidate running for
public office is not strictly on the period of residence in the place where he
seeks to be elected but on the acquaintance by the candidate on his
constituents vital needs for their common welfare; and that his nine
months of actual stay in Uyugan, Batanes prior to his election is a
substantial compliance with the law. Petitioner insists that the COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion in canceling his COC.
We are not persuaded.
RA No. 9225, which is known as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition
Act of 2003, declares that natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who have
logical and consistent with the general intent of the law to allow for dual
citizenship. Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, both
Philippine and foreign citizenships, he may establish residence either in the
Philippines or in the foreign country of which he is also a citizen.
Republic Act No. 7160, which is known as the Local Government Code of
1991, provides, among others, for the qualifications of an elective local
official. Section 39 thereof states:
SEC. 39. Qualifications. (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the
Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city or province
or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
panlungsod, or sanggunian bayan, the district where he intends to be elected;
a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of
the election; and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language
or dialect.
Clearly, the Local Government Code requires that the candidate must be a
resident of the place where he seeks to be elected at least one year
immediately preceding the election day. Respondent filed the petition for
cancellation of petitioners COC on the ground that the latter made
material misrepresentation when he declared therein that he is a resident of
Uyugan, Batanes for at least one year immediately preceeding the day of
elections.
The term residence is to be understood not in its common acceptation as
referring to dwelling or habitation, but rather to domicile or legal
residence, that is, the place where a party actually or constructively has
9
his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any
given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi). A
10
11
Petitioner was a natural born Filipino who was born and raised in Uyugan,
Batanes. Thus, it could be said that he had his domicile of origin in
Uyugan, Batanes. However, he later worked in Canada and became a
Canadian citizen. In Coquilla v. COMELEC we ruled that naturalization in
12
13
citizenship under RA No. 9225 and run for Mayor of General Macarthur,
Eastern Samar and whose residency in the said place was put in issue, we
had the occasion to state, thus:
[Petitioners] reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under Republic
Act No. 9225 had no automatic impact or effect on his residence/domicile.
He could still retain his domicile in the USA, and he did not necessarily
regain his domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern
Samar, Philippines. Ty merely had the option to again establish his domicile
in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, said
place becoming his new domicile of choice. The length of his residence
therein shall be determined from the time he made it his domicile of choice,
and it shall not retroact to the time of his birth.
15
17
Records indeed showed that petitioner failed to prove that he had been a
resident of Uyugan, Batanes for at least one year immediately preceding
the day of elections as required under Section 39 of the Local Government
Code.
Petitioners argument that his nine (9) months of actual stay in Uyugan,
Batanes, prior to the May 13, 2013 local elections is a substantial compliance
with the law, is not persuasive. In Aquino v. Commission on Elections, we
18
held:
x x x A democratic government is necessarily a government of laws. In a
republican government those laws are themselves ordained by the people.
Through their representatives, they dictate the qualifications necessary for
service in government positions. And as petitioner clearly lacks one of the
essential qualifications for running for membership in the House of
Representatives, not even the will of a majority or plurality of the voters of
the Second District of Makati City would substitute for a requirement
mandated by the fundamental law itself.
19